The purging of Professor Kuruvilla George this week from the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission is further proof of the extreme intolerance of homosexual activists.

Apparently anyone holding the view that marriage is between a man and a woman is not fit for public service and must be expunged.

Even former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, who was last year pilloried by activists when he supported the idea of a child having a mother and father wherever possible, has now rolled over and publicly supported redefining marriage. At the time, the activists called for Kennett’s scalp as head of Beyond Blue and targeted its funding, always a good stick to use on not for profits and one previously used to neutralise the Online Opinion website.

Of course there were also calls for tennis icon Margaret Court to have her name removed from the arena named in her honour at Melbourne Park Tennis Centre because of her views in support of man-woman marriage. Happily she is a champion and made of the stuff of champions.

So when Professor George, Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist and a member of the EOC, was found to have supported a view out of step with the gay orthodoxy, the activists went into overdrive until he was forced to resign.

His crime was to join 150 other medical practitioners in a submission to a Greens-inspired Senate Inquiry that stated among other things, that children do best with their biological mother and father.

This statement of commonsense of course does not deny that same-sex couples can love a child and parent competently.

But it did affirm that where Governments have a responsibility to children, they should act in a child’s best interests which is to ensure that wherever possible a child is not denied in a premeditated way either or both of its biological parents.

Unfortunately same-sex marriage and the right to same-sex family formation that flows from this allows two men to exclude a child’s birth mother from the life of the child. Conversely, lesbian parenting deliberately cuts off the father from the child, and in some states the father is not even allowed to be listed on the birth certificate.

Clearly there is a clash of rights between adults and children who have no say in their being deliberately cut off from their genetic heritage, something law-makers need to ponder as they consider the three bills before the federal parliament which aim to create non-biological marriage.

What is disturbing though is the activists’ use of research to support the proposition that there is no difference between same-sex parenting and biological parenting.

The head of a cluster of predominantly gay activist academics, Dr Damien Riggs of Flinders University, was quick out of the blocks to condemn Professor George and the 150 doctors for their ‘unscientific’ view that kids do better with their natural parents.

In 2007, Riggs and his team of five authors which included four gay activists, produced a literature review for the Australian Psychological Society, which surprise, surprise, said kids are just as well off without their biological parents.

But when interviewed on SBS radio this week, Dr Riggs admitted that the studies he reviewed only examined lesbian parenting. Surely this so called research has excluded half the demographic to be compared with heterosexual parenting, important when in some states even a single man can get a child through surrogacy.

But Dr Riggs didn’t disclose that the phenomenon of visible homosexual families is a recent construct for which there has simply not been the time to gather reliable data.

In condemning Professor George, Dr Riggs did not engage the substance of the medical practitioners’ submission to the Senate which raised concerns that same-sex relationships are well proven to be inherently and markedly less stable than heterosexual ones.

At least three academic reviews have questioned the validity of many of the studies which Dr Riggs relies upon.

Quantitative analysis experts Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai reviewed 49 studies supporting same-sex parenting, many of which were used byDr Riggs, and found that all 49 contained serious methodological flaws

There is enough doubt about the rigour of Dr Rigg’s work to call into question his dogmatic statements that same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting will have no adverse impacts on children. It is clearly no basis for federal politicians to change the Marriage Act – a decision which will have big consequences for children deliberately excluded from one of their biological parents for life.

Professor George should be invited back to the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and claims by homosexual activists of equal parenting outcomes should be subjected to much more rigour before politicians legislate to create another stolen generation.